1988 PLP 1327 (SCMR)
ABDUL AZIZ KIYANI — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORIES BOARD, WAH CANTT. and another Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1327 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S.A. Nusrat, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ KIYANI — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORIES BOARD, WAH CANTT. and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1327 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1327 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S.A. Nusrat, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1327 (SCMR) (ABDUL AZIZ KIYANI — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORIES BOARD, WAH CANTT. and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Elahi Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 1987.
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Elahi Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 6-7-1986, passed in W.P. No.378/1985). --Arts.185(3) & 199--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Terms and conditions for allotment of plot of land in a Cantonment
Eligibility for--Petitioner seeking allotment of plot in a Scheme in a Cantonment was found ineligible because he already owned a plot/house there- Order challenged in Constitutional petition on ground that the ineligibility clause had been removed subsequently from prescribed conditions and petitioner was entitled for allotment--Findings of High Court that minutes of Cantonment Board containing recommendation for removal of relevant condition were inoperative for want of approval by the Director, Military Lands nor it could be given retrospective effect, held, were unexceptionable--Not being a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioner applied for the allotment of a plot in the extension scheme of Lala Rukh No.2, Wah Cantt., but his application was rejected by the Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board on the ground that he was ineligible for the same in terms of paragraph 3(c) of the Scheme. It was provided in the relevant paragraph that an officer, who owned a plot or a house in his name or in the name of his wife/husband or dependent children in any housing scheme in Pakistan, was ineligible for allotment in the scheme in question. It is not disputed that the petitioner owned a plot/house in the Wah Cantt. , itself. From such refusal of allotment, which was reflected on account of the absence of the petitioner's name in the list of allottees circulated by the Allotment Committee dated 8‑10‑1984, an appeal was taken by the petitioner to the President, Cantonment Board, which was dismissed on the basis of the petitioner's ineligibility vide paragraph 3(c) of D.O. Part 1 No.168 of 17‑3‑1984, referred to above. Being aggrieved by such decision, the petitioner filed a constitutional petition in the High Court, which was dismissed as per impugned judgment. 2. In support of the constitutional petition, it was urged before the learned High Court that the ineligibility contained in relevant paragraph 3(c) had been later removed by the Board as per its decision dated 10‑10‑1984 and as such the petitioner was entitled for the allotment. The learned High Court, however, found, and rightly so, that the minutes of the Board dated 10‑10‑1984 were in the form of mere recommendation and were not approved by the concerned authorities; in any case the same could not have retrospective effect. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court. The finding of the learned High Court, that the minutes of the Board dated 10‑10‑1984 were inoperative for want of approval, unexceptionable. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that the said minutes were approved by the Director, Military Lands and in any case no amendment of paragraph 3(c) was shown to have been made pursuant to the resolution of the Board dated 8‑10‑1984. We otherwise find that it is not a fit case for grant of leave. The petition, which has no force, is dismissed accordingly. M.I. /A‑226/S Petition dismissed.